Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
RAM KUMAR AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/02/1991
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 649 1991 SCC (2) 247
JT 1991 (1) 582 1991 SCALE (1)349
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act. 1894: Section 18 and 19. Land
Acquisition-Compensation-Claimants application for reference
under section 18 for claim of enhanced compensation in
respect of the whole land acquired-But Land Schedule annexed
with application indicating Khasra No. in respect of part of
the lands-Collector making a statement under section 19 to
the Reference Court restricted to lands specified by Khasra
No. and not in respect of the whole land acquired-Held State
acquiring land cannot take advantage of party’s ignorance
and consequent non-specification of Khasra No.-It is the
duty of Collector to send full information to the Reference
Court regarding the entire land acquired.
HEADNOTE:
The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired and
they were awarded compensation for their lands. Being
dissatisfied with the compensation they made an application
for a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made a reference to
the Additional District Judge and in its statement under
Section 19 the Collector included only those lands which
were included by the appellants in their application for
reference under section 18. The appellants filed an
application before the Additional District Judge under
section 151-153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a
direction to the Collector to file a revised statement
giving the details of the whole of their lands acquired for
the purposes of claim of enhanced compensation. The
Additional District Judge directed the Collector to furnish
a correct statement under section 19. Against the order of
the Additional District Judge the Union of India filed a
revision petition before the High Court, which allowed the
petition by holding that the power of the Collector to make
a reference was restricted to what was stated by the
appellants in their application for reference and only those
Khasra Nos. which were specifically mentioned in the
Schedule annexed with the application under section 18 could
be considered for the purposes of enhancement of the claim
of compensation and not the entire land acquired. Hence
this appeal against the order of the High Court.
650
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the
High Court, this Court,
HELD: 1. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 the only requirement for the person interested who has
not accepted the award is to move a written application to
the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for the
determination of the Court. One of the grounds for not
accepting the award is the amount of compensation. Once
such application is moved it is the duty of the Collector to
make a reference to the Court. Under section 19 of the Act
while making the reference the Collector is required to
state for the information of the Court the particulars as
mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
19 of the Act. Thus it is the duty of the Collector to
mention not only the situation and extent of land but even
particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops
thereon. The agriculturist whose land is acquired may not
be fully conversant with the Khasra No. or area as entered
in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the State
acquiring such land cannot be allowed to take any advantage
of such ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an
application is moved for making a reference under section 18
of the Act it becomes the duty of the Collector to send full
information to the Court regarding the entire land acquired
and it is thereafter the duty of the Court to decide the
matter in accordance with law. [657B-E]
2. From a perusal of the application filed under
Section 18 of the Act along with the Schedule annexed
therewith it is clear that the appellants were claiming an
enhancement in the compensation in respect of the entire
land acquired and there was no question of asking for a
reference for a limited portion of land. The appellants
were not required to pay any Court fees ad valorem on a
prayer for enhancement of compensation while moving an
application to the Collector for making a reference to the
Court under section 18 of the Act. The High Court
unnecessarily went into the question of some statement made
by the learned counsel for the appellants before the
Additional District Judge and examining its validity under
Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus committed an
error in deciding the matter with a wrong approach and in a
technical manner. [655E, F-G, 657F]
Smt Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, A.I.R. 1975
S.C. 2202; cited.
651
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 of
1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1976 of the
Delhi High Court in C.R. No. 354 of 1975.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, K.B. Rohatagi, S.K. Dhingra and
Shashank Shekhar for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan, R.B. Mishra, C.V.S. Rao and S.N. Terdal
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 10.8.1976 in
Civil Revision No. 354 of 1975. Agricultural land measuring
78 bighas and 14 biswas belonging to the appellants situated
in village Garhi Peeran was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’the
Act’). The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
10.10.1967 allowing compensation for land in block ’A’ @ Rs.
2300 per bigha and in block ’B’ @ Rs. 1200 per bigha. The
claimants/appellants submitted an application under Sec. 18
of the Act for making a reference to the Court. The
Collector made a reference to the Court in pursuance to the
said application submitted by the appellants. The
Additional District Judge by Judgment dated 15.1.1971
increased the amount of compensation to Rs.4,000 per bigha
for land in block ’A’ and Rs.2,500 per bigha for land in
block ’B’. The appellants filed an application on 16.1.1971
under Sections 151-153 C.P.C. before the Additional
District Judge praying that the land in Khasra Nos. 408,
411, 763, 764, 891, 893, 410, 432, 433, 504, 506, 761, 900,
901, & 904 had not been shown by the Land Acquisition
Collector in the statement under Section 19 of the Act
although he had sent he names of all the Bhoomidars of the
aforesaid land. The mistake was on the part of the Land
Acquisition Collector and the appellants should not suffer
on account of the mistake or oversight of the Collector. It
was thus prayed that in the interest of justice the
Collector may be directed to file a revised statement under
Sec. 19 of the Act giving the details of the whole of the
land belonging to the claimants which had been left out on
account of accidental slip or omission. The application was
opposed on behalf of the Union of India. The Additional
District Judge after hearing the parties at length, by order
dated 18.2.1975 allowed the
652
application and directed the Land Acquisition Collector
concerned to furnish the correct statement under Sec. 19 of
the Act regarding the land acquired of the appellants.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Additional
District Judge, Union of India filed a revision before the
High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 10.8.1976
allowed the revision and set aside the order of the
Additional District Judge dated 18.2.1975. The appellants
have now, come in appeal against the order of the High
Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record. There is no manner of dispute that the
land acquired was 78 bighas and 14 biswas and the appellants
were entitled to the compensation of the entire land. The
Land Acquisition Collector gave an award and the appellants
being not satisfied with the amount of compensation
submitted an application for making a reference to the Court
under Sec. 18 of the Act. A perusal of the application
submitted by the appellants under Sec. 18 of the Act shows
that in para (1) it was stated as under:
"That the claimants’ land details of which are
given in the schedule has been acquired under the
aforesaid Award. The Collector has awarded a very
low rate of compensation to which claimants are not
satisfied as their claims have not been adequately
considered by the Collector."
Thereafter grounds of reference were stated and ground (9)
which is relevant for our purpose is reproduced as under:
"9. That the claimant petitioners claim
compensation for the whole of their land at the
rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha, Rs.10,000 for the
well and Rs.200 each for each tree. They further
claim Rs.60,000 each for their resettlement as
their entire land in the village has been taken
away under the acquisition and they have been
uprooted. They also claim 15% solatium and
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
enhanced amount of compensation plus the solatium
with effect from 4.3.1963."
A schedule of land belonging to claimant-petitioners was
also annexed with the application which is as under:
653
SCHEDULE OF LAND BELONGING TO CLAIMANT PETITIONERS
ACQUIRED UNDER AWARD NO. 2024
Kh. Nos. Area
898 4-16
899 0-11
417 1-03
431 2-09
407 0-05
405 1-11
507 5-06
514 4-16
515 4-16
520 2-04
406 2-17
416 3-08
etc. etc
The High Court took the view that only those Khasra
Nos. which were specifically mentioned in the schedule could
alone be considered for the purpose of enhancement of the
claim of compensation and not the entire land acquired. The
area of the above Khasra Nos. amounted to 34 bighas 2 biswas
only though the total area of acquired land amounted to 78
bighas and 14 biswas. The High Court in this regard took
the view that the reference was made by the Collector by
sending a statement of the Court of the Additional District
Judge under Sec. 19 of the Act. In this statement only
those fields were included which had been listed in the
schedule attached to the application under Sec. 18. The
High Court further held that the power of the Collector to
make the reference was restricted to what was stated in the
claimants’ application for reference under Sec. 18 and does
not extend beyond it. If the claimant, does not include
some fields in his reference application, the Collector
cannot include it in the statement under Sec. 19. The High
Court further held as under:
"In the original reference petition under section
18 by claimants the adjective "whole" was used
in relation to the
654
land of the claimants and the words "etc. etc."
were also used in the schedule. At the same time,
certain fields of the claimants which were the
subject-matter of the Collector’s award were not
included in the reference petition. There was
certainly an ambiguity as to the intention of the
claimants as expressed by the reference petition.
The counsel for the Union of India was, therefore,
justified in requesting the Additional District
Judge to call upon the claimants either to admit
the statement sent by the Collector under Section
19 or to file an amended reference petition stating
their shares individually. The Additional District
Judge was also justified in asking the counsel for
the claimants to examine the preliminary objections
and to make a statement. The power of the Court to
call upon the counsel for the claimants to make a
statement was derived from Order X, Civil Procedure
Code. Under Rule 2 of Order X, the Court had power
to examine a party or his pleader and to record his
answer in relation to any material question
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
relating to the reference before it. Under Order
XIV rule 3, the materials on which issues had to be
framed by the Court included such statements made
by the pleaders of the parties under Order X.
Accordingly, we find that the learned Additional
District Judge used the statement made by the
counsel for the claimants as the basis for
dismissing the preliminary objections advanced by
the Union of India. The Counsel for the claimants
had authority to make the statement which he did.
The Supreme Court has recently pointed out in Smt.
Jamilabai v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, AIR 1975 S.C.
2202, that the implied authority of the counsel
extends not only to make such a statement but even
to compromise a suit or to admit a claim. Had the
counsel for the claimants not made the statement
there that the Collector’s statement under Section
19 is correct, the Additional District Judge would
have been found to call upon the claimants to
clarify the schedule to the reference petition so
that the Court could know precisely the fields in
respect of which enhancement of compensation was
claimed. It is because the claimants’ counsel
asked the Court to take the Collector’s statement
under Section 19 as correct that the Court decided
to investigate only the correctness of the
compensation regarding those fields."
The High Court ultimately took the view that the only
conclusion
655
possible was that the enhancement was restricted to the land
in dispute and the land in dispute could only be such land
in respect of which reference was demanded by the claimants.
In our view the High Court was totally wrong and
unnecessarily complicated the matter which seems to us,
quite simple. It is an admitted position that 78 bighas and
14 biswas of land belonging to the appellants was acquired
and the Land Acquisition Collector had given an award @
Rs.2,300 per bigha for block ’A’ and Rs.1,200 per bigha for
block ’B’. The appellants were not satisfied with the above
rate of compensation and they had moved an application for
making a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. In the
application it was clearly mentioned that the Collector had
awarded a very low rate of compensation to which the
claimants were not satisfied. In ground No. 9 the
claimants/petitioners had mentioned that they were claiming
compensation for the whole of their land @ Rs.20,000 per
bigha. That apart in the schedule also some khasra Nos.
were mentioned specifically but in the end the words used
were ’etc. etc’. The Additional District Judge had passed
the order on 15.1.1971 and immediately on the next day i.e.
16.1.1971 the appellants had submitted the application under
Secs. 151-153 C.P.C. for correcting the mistake. The
Additional District Judge who was seized of the matter
allowed the said application by his order dated 18.2.1975.
Thus from a perusal of the application filed under Sec. 18
of the Act alongwith the schedule we are fully satisfied
that the appellants were claiming an enhancement in the
compensation in respect of the entire land acquired and
there was no question of asking for a reference for a
limited portion of land measuring 34 bighas and 2 bigwas
only. The High Court unnecessarily went into the question
of some statement made by the learned counsel for the
appellants before the Additional District Judge and in
examining its validity under Order X of the C.P.C. It was a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
simple matter to be decided on the basis of factual
statements made in the application and we are fully
convinced that the appellants had sought a reference for the
entire land acquired and there was no reason whatsoever in
leaving out some portion of the land when the grievance of
the appellants was for enhancing the compensation which was
awarded at a low rate. The appellants were not required to
pay any Court fees ad valorem on a prayer for enhancement of
compensation while moving an application to the Collector
for making a reference to the Court under Sec. 18 of the
Act. Learned counsel for the Union of India was unable to
give any plausible explanation which might have persuaded
the appellants to have left a large portion of the land in
the application filed under Sec. 18 of the Act from claiming
enhancement in the amount of compensation.
656
In order to appreciate the controversy we would like to
Secs. 18 & 19 of the Act which are reproduced as under:
Sec. 18. Reference to Court:
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award
may by written application to the Collector, require
that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court, whether his objection to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation,
the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment
of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his award,
within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under Sec. 12, sub-section
(2), or within six months from the date of the
Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.
Sec. 19 Collector’s statement to the Court-
(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state
for the information of the Court, in writing under his
hand,-
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with
particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops
thereon;
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think
interested in such land,
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered
under section 5 and 17, or either of them, and the
amount of compensation awarded under section 11;and
(d) if the objection be to the amount of the
compensation,
657
grounds on which the amount of compensation was
determined.
(2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule
giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and
of the statements in writing made or delivered by the
parties interested respectively."
Under Sec. 18 of the Act the only requirement for the person
interested who had not accepted the award was to move a
written application to the Collector requiring that the
matter be referred for the determination of the Court. One
of the grounds for the accepting the award was the amount of
compensation. Once such application was moved it was the
duty of the Collector to make a reference to the Court.
Under Sec. 19 of the Act while making the reference the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
Collector was required to state for the information of the
Court the particulars as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of
sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 19 of the Act. Thus it was the duty of
the Collector to mention not only the situation and extent
of land but even particulars of any trees, buildings or
standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose land is
acquired may not be fully conversant with the khasra No. or
area as entered in the Revenue records and the Union of
India or the State acquiring such land should not be allowed
to take any advantage of such ignorance of the
agriculturists. Once an application is moved for making a
reference under Sec. 18 of the Act it becomes the duty of
the Collector to send full information to the Court
regarding the entire land acquired and it is thereafter the
duty of the Court to decide the matter in accordance with
law.
Thus looking into the matter from any angle, we are
fully satisfied that the Additional District Judge was
justified in allowing the application filed by the
appellants and the High Court committed an error in deciding
the matter with a wrong approach and in a technical manner.
In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of
the High Court dated 10.8.1976 and uphold the order of the
Additional District Judge dated 15.1.1971, with costs.
Appeal allowed.
658